Ex-paratrooper, disabled vet, ex-firearms instructor, former Ron Paul staffer, Yale Law grad/Research Scholar, Montana lawyer and president and founder of Oath Keepers.
Stewart has written for Gerry Spence's The Warrior, the Enemy at the Gate column for S.W.A.T. Magazine, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people in the "war on terror".
This is Stewart's personal blog and does not necessarily represent the official stance of Oath Keepers.

Friday, January 11, 2008

I am a Mexican-American, I worked for Ron Paul in the 1990’s, and I Know that Ron Paul is No Racist!

There is now underway a full-blown smear campaign to paint Ron Paul as a racist.First, there was the lame attempt at guilt by association, with a mere campaign contribution by some red neck racist being touted as “proof” that Ron Paul is racist.And then there were equally stupid Kevin Baconesque degrees of separation attempts to connect Ron with various so-called “hate groups.”

Now the muckrakers are dredging up ancient, obscure newsletters written by some equally obscure ghost writing employee(s) of Dr. Paul’s way back in the early 1990’s.This only tells me that Ron Paul is a real threat to the political establishment, and they are pulling out all the stops in an attempt to stop the Ron Paul Revolution.

I worked for Ron Paul, in his Washington D.C. office, in 1998-99, seeing him almost every day, and saw absolutely no indication of him being racist, and in fact, I saw many reasons to know he is not racist.I am of Hispanic decent, and quite proud of it.My family on my mother’s side were migrant farm workers and my Great-Grandfather even rode with Pancho Villa.I am also part American-Indian.

My great-grandfather, Jacinto Sandoval (a rather fierce man) who rode with Pancho Villa, poses for a photo with two of my great-uncles.

My great-grandmother, Ruth Gasca Parra, with her indian braids.

That heritage not only makes it rather difficult for anyone to smear me as somehow being a white racist (which is good for me if I am ever foolish enough to run for office), but also cuts against Ron Paul's supposed "ties" with white supremacists and this latest smear campaign based on what some employee of his wrote fifteen years ago.

Not only am I outspoken about my heritage, I don’t work for racists and I would never have worked on Ron Paul’s staff if I had any suspicion whatsoever that he was "racist." And I wasn't the only staff member of "mixed race." There were several others and he never gave it a second thought.One of them was a young woman who is half Panamanian, with an obvious dark complexion.If Ron Paul were some kind of racist, who thinks non-whites are inferior, why would he hire her, or me? Was it some kind of elaborate, clever cover? No.The reason he did not care about our race is because he is a libertarian who sees people as individuals, not members of groups, racial or otherwise.

There are many different segments of society who are drawn to a man like Ron Paul. People of a wide variety of backgrounds support him because people of a wide variety of backgrounds support liberty and have a fundamental distrust of excessive government power.

During my time in his office, as now in the grassroots movement, there were fundamentalist Christians (and I mean really fundamentalist), working right next to proud and opinionated atheists.There were budhists, anarcho-capitalists, Big L Libertarians, objectivists, old school "Reagan" conservatives, and people of all manner of ethnic background, all working side-by-side.I have even seen gay people in those circles. They did not agree on many things, or even like each other, to be blunt, but whatever their personal background or orientation, they all saw value in working for a strict constitutionalist and a man of deep principle and courage.

They were and are all part of the broader Freedom Movement – which contains a very eclectic mix of people who all share a desire for liberty.But as eclectic and diverse as his staff was in other ways, I never knew anyone on his staff to be racist, and I think it is because racists are so directly at odds with Ron Paul's philosophy of individual rights - such people just would not have fit in. Racists are collectivists, who see people as members of groups only, rather than as individuals.Such a viewpoint is fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism.As Ron Paul himself notes:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups.

White Power Nazis are no exception to the rule that racists are collectivists, being, after-all, national SOCIALISTS. Such people are not only my permanent enemies because I am not pure white, as they have sworn me their enemy, they are also my ideological enemies - as much as any Marxist - because their beliefs are entirely incompatible with the concepts of individual liberty, personal self determination, and reason that is the heart of libertarianism. That makes them Ron Paul's ideological enemies as well because Ron Paul is a libertarian’s libertarian.

But some of these collectivist racists now at least claim to support Ron Paul. Why? I suspect for the same reason the far left collectivist anti war protester does. There is something they fear or detest so much in the current Federal government that they are willing to support a man who clearly does not agree with them on fundamental philosophical principles. I'll bet the far lefty anti war protester and the White Power skin head consider each other mortal enemies, but they both support the same man for very similar reasons. Fear of excessive government power, and a desire to return to more limited government under the Constitution makes for strange political combinations sometimes.

If Ron Paul is somehow racist because some racists support him, does that make him a socialist lefty hippy because some far left anti war hippy supports him? Does it make the lefty hippy a racist too, because he supports Ron right along with the skin-head? There are also gay people who support Ron Paul. Does that make Ron gay? Does that make the Nazi guy gay too, or a "gay lover" because he also supports Ron? No, of course not.

People from all of those backgrounds support Ron Paul because they all have a desire to return to Constitutional government. Though they don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, they fear what comes from unconstitutional government.

It would be absurd to say that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are racist, gay, atheist, socialist, or whatever because people of those persuasions value and support those documents. The same is true for Dr. Paul because he is the Champion of the Constitution. What all those people really support is not a man, as much as it is the Constitution itself.

It seems that even racist dumb asses prefer the Constitution, at least for now (that is how dangerous the federal government has become!). I have my suspicions about their professed devotion to the Constitution, since their world view really is so collectivist, but I'm not going to reject the Constitution or Ron Paul just because the racist idiots don't realize that a restor

ation of the Constitution will not get them to their mythical "White America" like they may hope. What it will do is get us all to a place of liberty and justice for all, and the racists can then whither away like the outdated fools they are.

The latest smear against Ron Paul stemming from the old newsletters written by some employee.

The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.....When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

I believe him. Despite the fact that racism is incompatible with libertarianism, I have in fact known some people (thankfully few) who like to call themselves libertarians who are racist - there are stupid bigots in any movement –and just as we have seen that there are even some self-professed racists who express support for Ron Paul, it does not surprise me that at some point in Ron Paul’s long career in the Freedom Movement such a closet, collectivist racist was able to worm his way into working for Ron.

Ron Paul does not interrogate all of his new hires on their view on race, no doubt because he presumes that those who call themselves libertarians are not racists.In hindsight we can say that he should have been more careful in monitoring what his employees wrote long ago, and no doubt he has since become far more careful about watching what goes out with his name on it.But Ron Paul, being a sincere libertarian, is a very hands-off kind of guy, as Tucker Carlson noted in his recent article, and perhaps a bit too trusting by assuming that the people who work for him will be consistent, principled libertarians just as he is.

As I noted above, that is usually a fair and accurate assumption, and I never heard one racist comment from any staff.But it is certainly possible that one or two racist jerks slipped through the cracks.As I said, every movement has its idiots.As a case in point, look at Eric Dondero who used to work for Ron but after 9-11 transformed into a raving Kool-Aid drinking, Bush cheerleading, torture loving, warmongering neocon when it comes to the war on terror.Who would have known he was such a raving maniac?No doubt about it, that idiot had to have said, written, or done something that was embarrassing to Ron while working for him.

I have seen nothing, in all my interactions with Ron Paul, to ever suggest to me that he himself is racist. To the contrary, I have every reason to know he is not. And the same goes for his supposed hatred of gays. That is also total hogwash.Ron Paul does not care what someone is.He sees us all as individuals with God given rights.If you value liberty and the Constitution, then you are Ron Paul’s brother or sister in liberty, whatever your color, creed, or sexual preference.

This smear campaign reminds me of how the whole militia movement of the 1990’s was smeared as racist, even when some of the leadership in that movement was non-white.It also reminds me of how the Branch Davidian victims of government abuse were portrayed by the vast majority of media reports as being a bunch of religious extremist white people with guns, with the not-so-subtle implication that they were white racists. Most Americans thus never knew that the majority of the Branch Davidians were in fact non-white.

Four Branch Davidian women survivors attend the July, 1995 House Waco Hearings. I'll bet you didn't know they were so multicultural, did you? That is how effective a media smear campaign can be.

There were an estimated 40 blacks in that homestead church of 120 members, and among the Blacks killed in the fire were Wayne Martin, a 42-year-old Harvard trained lawyer, and four of his seven children. There were also entire families of Hispanics and Asians among them, and many mixed-race marriages and children. But the facts never stop the media or the wanna-be media in the blogosphere. Racism in general, and especially antisemitism, has always been the smear of choice against the Freedom Movement.

This is just a desperate attempt by a desperate establishment to silence this resurgent freedom movement by smearing Ron Paul with that same old smear of choice, racism.

Paul's public record spans decades. Have his bloviating accusers list all the quotes by him--along with a credible source--where Dr. Paul has written or spoken an unequivocally racist statement--and by that I mean a statement advocating that whites are superior and other races are inferior. Find a statement by him where he advocates either an enhancement or reduction of liberty for individuals belonging to any group of people based on their ethnicity.

If they can't, just remember your Shakespeare: "[I]t is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."

Here's my bet: Anything they come up with will be so indirect, or out of context, or possibly even true, just politically incorrect to admit in today's environment of conditioned Nazi-like sensitivities, that the reaction by anyone of fair an open mind will be: Is that all you've got? That's it?

Read the whole thing here, and check out the comments section, as David has challenged the accusers to post what they've got - to put up or shut up.

I agree with David that all that should really matter is whether Ron Paul himself has written or spoken an unequivocally racist statement, not whether he was an overly trusting, hands off supervisor of an employee who wrote stuff in his name (even his accusers admit that Ron did not actually write the statements they are digging up from the old newsletters). You can find over 1,000 of Ron Paul's articles and speeches here. Go look.

So, anyone who is proud of their heritage is a racist? All those who participate in Irish parades, Greek festivals, or any other ethnic, traditional celebration of their heritage are racists? Funny, I always thought a racist is a person who judged others by their race, and made categorical judgments based on race, rather than taking people as individuals. Alas, here come the terminology nick pickers. Thank you for showing me the light, oh wise one.

Either "Anonymous" is being sarcastically anti-PC, or he's playing the PC game of denigrating all thoughts and sentiments not approved by the elite. I suspect he's joking. Note the qualifying phrase "according to the current dogma" and the laughably ridiculous charge of "aboriginal American" racism. Then again, some people are ignorant enough to think Hispanics are aboriginal in the Western Hemisphere.

The Old Media smear campaign against Ron Paul smacks of desperation. The establishment propagandists realize they are losing control over the popular imagination. As much as RP's 5% to 10% results in the opening primaries might disappoint his more optimistic supporters, it's far more support than the Establishment expected. The debates reveal (to thoughtful observers at least) the appalling quality of the other candidates, and by extension the moral, intellectual, and practical bankruptcy of the neo-fascist system they defend and wish to expand.

Liberty under the Constitution, peace, and sound money were supposed to be "dead" issues beyond the pale of public discourse. Instead these ideas live and grow almost in proportion to the increasing calamities of the police state, war, and inflation. And their foremost champion in this hour is a humble, honest, clean living man with a long political track record matching his professed convictions - a man against whom the Old Media can only hurl shoddy, fabricated lies and childish insults.

Thanks for this piece. It seems that everybody from LGF to the HuffPo was all set for a witch-hunt, and now that Ron has repeatedly answered these charges, they still want someone to be the witch they can burn.

I don't care who wrote or edited those newsletters, because I'm satisfied that it wasn't my candidate.

Excellent post. Regarding the post by anonymous, if it were not for the fact that is is highly un-PC for white Europeans to be proud of their race while everyone else is encouraged to do so, I would really have no interest in the question of race. Hopefully, these collectivist racial concepts will be eliminated soon and we can respect each other as indiviuals with our own heritage to be proud of.

That is good to hear. Please, though, "National Socialism", has nothing to do with "Socialism". It was a term used by the Nazis to describe their ideology - wherein individual interests are subordinate to those of the "State", whatever that is. It is more commonly called "Fascism". Anyone who tells you they are a "National Socialist" probably isn't someone you would want to leave in charge of your kids. In fact anyone who talks about "the interests of the State" is probably trying to take something from you as well.

Thank you for posting this. Its no doubt that many are happy about these attempts to discredit Paul, and its no doubt that most people won't try to find the truth. They simply beleive whatever the media says and never question the lies that are told to them on a daily basis. Thank you for posting your experience with Ron Paul, actual facts as to how he really is by your accounts and giving people at least one way to see the truth.

What a wonderful article. The race card seems to be played a lot these days when someone gets popular, or frankly, expresses a view the main-stream media, ie, corporate America, opposes. The fact of the matter is, all mainstream news outlets are owned by the same people who control 95% of Americas money. And since Ron Paul wants to destroy the wonderful empire they have built on the dead bodies of hard working middle class Americans, propped up by the barely living lower-class, they are shaking in there diamond studded boots. Although "they" control the money, they can't control our minds. What "they" are unable to foresee is that the more their trickery and deceit escalates, the further they push us to a revolution. I hope it never -has- to come to that, but if it does, don't forget we outnumber them about a billion to one.

Fabulous post. I came here via a clever link at Greg Saunders' ugly smear, just the latest of many, at The Talent Show website, that was posted tonight at This Modern World. I'm really disappointed that Tom Tomorrow would run Saunders vulgar commentary. If this Dirt Rhodes Scholar commentary is legit, then this commentary should go viral and be sent to every media outlet and red state + progressive blog.

The trouble with your argument is that you're not really addressing the point. The question has relatively little to do with whether Ron Paul is a racist himself- most seem to agree that if he was, he isn't now. Instead, the question has to do with his judgment in permitting this material to go out under his name for an extended period of time; this was not one or two isolated incidents. It also has to do with the likelihood that at least one of the authors of the material remains a close advisor to him. Finally, it has to do with the fact that the words and phrases used - in a newsletter geared to raise money for Paul - were completely indefensible and blatantly racist. Moreover, their apparent intent was to mobilize the support of, and raise funds from, extreme racists.

Yet Paul refuses to take these charges seriously and refuses to address the material in the newsletters, which again went out under his name. Worse, the author/authors (to the extent they are still alive) refuse to step forward and take responsibility for their authorship.

While James Kirchick may have just been muckraking, that does not erase the fact that the newsletters exist, and the material in those newsletters exists. While some of the material Kirchick found is not necessarily racist, plenty of it is. Paul (and any living authors) must address the material directly if he wishes to disown it; general non-denial denials aren't going to cut it, and neither will implausible claims that he was unaware of the material in the newsletters. If he took appropriate action against the authors at the time, he should disclose that action. He should also be honest about the purpose and content of the newsletters.

Thank you for providing links to those Branch Davidian fatalities. That was new to me. I had no idea there were so many minorities. It's been a while, I was younger, but I honestly thought they were white. (*Sigh* Who did I entrust to lead me to believe that?) The media work in smear jobs the way you work with clay. Awesome scultpture BTW! Keep defending freedom and liberty, my friend! Keep telling the truth.

Is Ron Paul a racist? I don't care. But many years ago the RON PAUL NEWSLETTER contained very racist statements. Ron Paul claims he didn't write those articles and he doesn't know who did. Ok fine, but it was still the RON PAUL NEWSLETTER. Who do I think should take responsibility for those words? RON PAUL!

Ron Paul needs to at least apologize for careless oversight of that newsletter. So far I have just heard lame denials.

For all the positive and insightful comments, I thank you all. I am happy to do what I can to set the record straight and it is good to see such thoughtful people also standing up for Dr. Paul.

Now,Anonymous said:

"'My great-grandparents were Mexican. Therefore Ron Paul is not a racist.'

Most fallacious argument ever."

Talk about a distortion (or do you just have reading comprehension problems?). In case it is the later, allow me to make it simple for you.

1. Ron Paul hired minorities to work on his DC and Texas staff, and not a janitors, but to work on policy formation and to represent him in communications with the general public and with constituents. That cuts against him somehow being a racist, who sees minorities as inferior.

2. I do not work for racists, nor do I tolerate them (I'd just as soon smash in their faces). And I had close interaction with Ron and his entire staff, and would have known if any of them were racists. That too cuts against him being a racist.

In both of those points I am acting as a character witness for Ron, against an attack on his character. Just think of a trial on one of those TV shows where the prosecution puts people on the stand to say what a mean, violent bastard the defendant is, and the defense then puts people on the stand to rebut those attacks by testifying that they have never known the defendant to be violent, or to lose his temper. I am a character witness - get it? Not simply because of my race, but because of what I saw (and I am no slouch at detecting racist assholes, let me tell you).

3. I pointed out how Ron's philosophy of individual liberty is incompatible with the collective mindset of racists. That is a logical argument, dim whit, not mere assertion.

4. In answer to "how could that have happened under his nose" I pointed out how eclectic a big tent the Freedom Movement was and still is, and thus a wide variety of people work in it. Thus, you will get the occasional racist who slips through the cracks. That does not mean everyone else in that movement is also racist (as the Southern Poverty Law Center would have you believe), nor does it mean that Ron is a racist, or that he knowingly let a racist work for him just because one of his employees put out some racist comments.

I also pointed out how Ron is a very hands-off boss, and very trusting (too much, at times) and thus it is not incredible, in the true sense of that term, for him to have trusted someone over a long period of time to ghost write FUNDRAISING literature in the form of a newsletter, without keeping a close eye on everything that went out.

Now, how about rebutting my actual argument rather than a silly straw man?

Stewart

PS - The short answer to Mark's assertion that I am not addressing the real issue, is that those attacking Ron ARE accusing him of being racist, not merely a poor supervisor of his employees. Thus, I countered the argument I see all over the web, all over TV (the not so clever, thinly disguised innuendos), and in fact, Mark himself is essentially also saying Ron must have at least been racist at the time, because it is "implausible" that he could not know what was said in his name (and the obvious insinuation is "how do we know he is not a racist now?).

Those newsletters were a fundraising mechanism, as are those silly letters we all get from various organizations asking for money. Ron's only sin was trusting someone to do a competent job of it without him proofreading everything. He learned his lesson. When I worked for him in 98-99, he read everything I wrote before it went out.

Seems to me what this all boils down to is:

"Ron Paul is a racist even if we acknowledge he did not actually write the stuff (as most of his attackers now admit), because he let a racist work for him and ghost write for him without paying close enough attention, and because he will not prostrate himself before us for a proper self-mutilation and condemnation."

And note how Mark puts so much emphasis on the alleged long-term, ongoing relationship with the suspected ghost writer. God forbid Ron should forgive someone and allow them to mend the error of their ways, as he is prone to do, being such a forgiving, kind hearted man.

This is, when all is said and done, as much a guilt by association attack as was the flap over the white supremacist asshole's contribution.

Mark, go take a look at the comments to my article on reddit, where there are multiple Ron Paul hating posters making racist comments toward me, such as telling me to shut the fuck up and go mow Ron's lawn. Ironic, I think.

Here you can vote our new president. Stop believing the statistic you see on television. Let`s make our own vote. Below you have informations about all the candidates . Choose the president that will change your live from 2008. http://presidentofamerica.blogspot.com/

"I think the guy was yanking your chain. No body is that stupid, are they?"

Oh man, you wouldn't believe the bizarre comments I get to some of my posts.

Check this one out:

"YOUR GOFFY THE UNITED STATES IS LEAD BY BARBARIANS NOW.TAKE A LOOK AROUND YOU, THOUSAND OF GANGS ,SERIAL KILLERS MOLESTORS.BACK IN THE 80S ILL BE TALKING TO A ARSONIST AT A PARTY DID NOT NO WHAT JOB HE DID .LATER THAT WEEK HE MADE THE CITY PAPERS FOR BURNING DOWN RESTURANTS.YOU YOUNG GUYS POINT THE FINGER AT THE WORLD AND SAY YOUR BAD .LOOK AROUND YOU BAD PEOPLE HERE TOO."

That was in response to this post I did on the absurdly racist neocon, Phillip Atkinson.

"Warts and all" RP is still the only Republican who "gets it". Even if he were a sheet wearing member of the KKK, his positions are still the best for all AMERICANS regardless of coler. Would that there were a way to make "the masses" understand that. God save the Republic. -V

I think this pretty much confirms what we all know to be true that Ron is legit. I hope He's proud to be white, I hope he's proud to be American. I'm sick and tired of both instances being trashed by the PC Elitists, and I truly believe his leading by sympathy and example will make EVERYONE proud to be who they are, as Americans.

I actually thought of you when I first heard about this--since I did know your ethnicity and that you had worked for Dr. Paul--and I respect your opinions and those of your wife.

I am not going to repeat everything I have written on my blog, or in he comments on my post on this. But I will try to summarize.

I do not, from everything I have seen and heard from him that Ron Paul is a racist.

However, there have always been some signals which particularly bothered me on homophobia. His voting record on gay rights on those aspects which are a federal issue are not good--and not libertarian.

But I was willing to let it go, since the message that Ron Paul is proclaiming is the only hope for America.

Then came the "smear" and there is no doubt it was--it came out of the neoliberal prowar New Republic. I do not care about their analysis or the article. I do care about the raw materials and Ron Paul's response, or lack of adequate response to it.

I do not believe he actually wrote any of it, including the piece I cited which bore his signature. The style and tone is totally uncharacteristic of every other writing of his, and I have read quite a bit.

But it defies reason and common sense that he did not know over a period of several years that this stuff was going out under his name. And it is vile stuff--not only unliberatian, but un-American. I just can not buy the argument he was so busy he never saw any of this.

The minute he saw it, it should have been stopped, a full apology, the ghost writer identified and fired.

One of the basic principles of libertarianism is personal responsibility--I do not see that in the past behavior of Ron Paul in regard to this, or his response at this time.

In order to win me back as an enthusiastic supporter ( though I do intend to still vote for him in the primary--but the money and campaign efforts have been halted) I need a full vetting of the issue. Not just dismissing it as old rumors, and he did not know about it, etc.

A full transparent explanation is needed. And the writers need to be identified--even if some of them turn out to Lew Rockwell or other people prominent in his campaign. I looked up the editor of one of these newsletters--and she is active in the campaign in Texas. So even though Ron Paul argued that as the publisher he might not know who the writers were, that only the editor would know--well, she is available.

This can not be just dismissed as a smear by the establishment media. It was a hit, but they unfortunately had valid ammunition. And I am far from being the only libertarian highly disturbed by it.

It is also a bit unfair to whine about it being a smear. When a person decides to run for president their life is a fish bowl. Both their opponents and the media are going to find out everything they can--back to interviewing their first grade teacher.

Ron Paul had to be terribly naive to not know this would become an issue. And the fact it became an issue is a testament to the popularity he has garnered--and with it the close scrutiny of the media and his enemies.

Knowing that-- he should have been prepared to offer an adequate response.

Becky C., I think you are stupid to be a one-issue voter over homophobia, but that of course is your right. I suggest you go over to theamericanview.com and listen to John Lofton's interview of Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a very curious fellow, because on the one hand he strongly affirms that he believes in the infallibility of the Bible, yet he refused to say that he considers homosexuality to be a sin -- despite some rather intense pushing on that point from John Lofton. He wouldn't even concede that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin, which seems to me to be an untenable position, but anyway, that's Dr. Paul. I don't know if that will be "good enough" for you, but please remember that if you vote for anyone else, you are voting for someone who will continue to lead America into ruin. Any "adequately pro-gay" candidate is going to take the whole nation down the path to disaster. So which is better, a candidate who is less pro-gay than you would like, but who will at least preserve the nation from calamity, or an adequately pro-gay candidate who will preside over America's destruction?

Becky C., sorry for writing that I think *you* are stupid for being a one-issue voter. I think being a one-issue voter is stupid, but I don't know that you are a one-issue voter, and even you were, it wouldn't be right for me to address you that way.

Goodseed, nobody stole Ron Paul's credit card. If you *hand* someone your credit care and give them permission to use it, then you must bear responsibility for what they charge to it. So that's not such a hot analogy.

Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.

I wouldn't be at all surprised that he has some self-pride about his own actions, character and accomplishments, and the dignified way he carries himself in public and doesn't betray the Constitution and the loyalty to his oath of office.

I wouldn't doubt he's proud of his family and heritage -- if they have individually earned that pride -- just as he's proud of Mahatma Gandhi.

Ron Paul takes pride in individuals, for the content and character of their actions, not the color of their skin.

A house guest living with me for a while, a cousin, did take advantage of my hospitality. By going through my mail, she was able to access my credit card information. Although it was completely unexpected, I still had to clean up the mess.

I think Dr. Paul was taken advantage of at a time when he was frustrated with politics and not paying attention. He has assumed responsibility for that.

"Stewart Rhodes"....do you think he would have even interviewed you if your name were David Sanchez?

BTW, I'm have been a huge supporter (financially) of Ron Paul's so to hear that he had a racist newsletter is very disheartening to me at this point in the game. I've read his Issues Statement on Racism from his website (which has been dramatically rewritten!) and he essentially states that those who want diversity are the causes of racism. How crazy is that? It rubbed me the wrong way when I first read it and now, hearing about the newsletters, it makes me even angrier. Ron Paul needs to name names of those who wrote those articles and THEY need to refute the allegations.

it has been rewritten. He says he didn't write any of those things AT ALL.

I'm assuming that he means the racist stuff. You are saying that he wrote an article, then had someone, edit or inject their racist remarks, and it went out without his review of it??? Please be clear.

I'm not really liking the way he is handling this situation BUT I don't feel he's a racist at all.

TO: Maria Davis,Thanks for responding to my posting. What I meant when I said it was dramatically rewritten was the ISSUES STATEMENT on the RonPaul2008 website on Racism. That is what has been dramatically rewritten to make it sound less racist or less offensive. Still, it makes it sound as those who fight racism are the CAUSE of racism which I find indefensible (sp).

A few months ago, I went to the RP forums and asked about this and received enough feedback to rest my apprehensions but when the Newsletter came out, it only backed up my fears of racism. And this came AFTER I've given hundreds of dollars to the RP Campaign. I feel betrayed by a racist. How does he explain that "someone else" wrote these racist lines in multiple newsletters and NOT come forward with who they were?

As I have said in other blogs, I still support Ron Paul for the MANY other stands he takes. And I am secure in the knowledge that he can't turn back the hands of time to when Hispanics were relagated to the fields picking tomatoes (as I have done when I was a child). Racism is NOT caused by diversity. It is caused by ignorance.

1. "If Ron Paul is somehow racist because some racists support him" ... et al.If all the other candidates are fascists because corporate fascists support them ...An important comparison to make.2. Becky - "His voting record on gay rights on those aspects which are a federal issue are not good--and not libertarian." Becky, you are not listening - Ron Paul repeatedly states that libertarians do Not address individuals as parts of a group (e.g., gays) - so he votes AGAINST any federal bills impacting groups. And he repeatedly says these are issues for States to decide; NOT the federal government. Therefore he IS Libertarian. Please pay better attention so you can understand what you're being told.

OK EVERYBODY...LISTEN UP!!!!!!!! THOSE WHO KNOW RON PAUL PERSONALLY, FOR YEARS, ARE COMING OUT TO HIS DEFENSE. THOSE WHO SUPPORTED HIM AND NOW ARE UNSURE...THE TIME HAS COME TO STAND WITH HIM OR BOW OUT...TO TAKE STANCE AGAINST BIG CORPORATIONS AND THE MEDIA TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN. IF YOU BELIEVED HIS MESSAGE...THEN HAVE YOU LESS FAITH NOW???????? READ ON:

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A RacistLinder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishmentPaul Joseph WatsonPrison PlanetSunday, January 13, 2008

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

(Article continues below)

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

I can't sleep tonight. I think over and over about what is happening in my country, the United States of America, and I feel that I MUST do something and that something is to continue to support Ron Paul. Lord help us if we don't. David SanchezBedford, Texas.

First let me say, that I'm not even sure that you are or ever were a Ron Paul supporter. It may very well be that you are another candidate's supporter trying to "plant seeds of doubt" here.

However, I will respond to your last statement.

I disagree with you with Dr. Paul's ISSUE STATEMENTS regarding racism.

They have not been re-written extensively and what is written there now is NOT racist to me...not even a little bit.

If anything, they reflect what MLK believed..."I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. "

Not every minority accepts or agrees with Affirmative Action because many, such as myself, would like to be accepted into the workplace or school etc. based on my content and NOT my physical attributes.

Diversity GOOD, FORCED Diversity BAD.

You still have to ask the question, as to WHY is there still less minority representation in the Corporate World, Medical Industry, Ivy League Schools, and Government. We are making strides it will be a slow process BUT not because of Affirmative Action BUT because racism still exist in the hearts of many.

I like the idea of one taking responsibility for themselves and being an example to others regardless of race. I don't want the gov't to GROUP me with women or Latinos because then I'm no longer an individual. My personal needs and values are not the same as another woman or Latina.

There's a Conservative African American author by the name of Shelby Steele. He says. "the challenge is to make the collective, individuals."

That means going from GROUP thinking to INDIVIDUAL thinking and thus becoming part of a BIGGER picture.

Ron Paul is correct when he talks about the judicial laws being so unfair to minority. My friend make the stupid decision to sell drugs and got busted. I say, "do the crime, do the time." BUT he got 15 years????? When rapists, murderers, and pedophiles, get 1 -2 years and are out to do more harm??? I say "let the punishment fit the crime."

My sister-in-law is black and she raised her daughter to be an "individual" and taught her the importance of education from day one. Her daughter now attends Penn State University and is studying to become a Doctor (she's also a Ron Paul Supporter).

Did you know that PBS had a Republican debate? NOT all the other candidates attended?? Guiliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain did NOT attend.

Tavis Smiley was the host click here:they didn't come because they audience would be "hostile and unreceptive." RON PAUL was there!!

http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/video.html

All I can say is if you have ANY doubts because of his ISSUE STATEMENTS on racism then you need to move on otherwise, STAND YOUR GROUND with Ron Paul and all his supporter. Continue to donate.

Maria, Great minds think alike. Oddly, you were probably writing your post when I was writing mine earlier. I am STILL a Ron Paul supporter and, yes, I will still support him financially and when the primaries are here in Texas I will vote for him.

It is 12:10 a.m. and I can't sleep for fear of what is happening in our nation.

If we're going to complain about republicans being racist, why don't we pick on the ones who've uttered racist remarks directly from their mouths?:

John McCain: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml

Mitt Romney: "The best thing for me to do politically is stay away from the Big Dig -- just get as far away from that tar baby as I possibly can." http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/07/31/romney_apologizes_for_use_of_expression/

And let's not forget the democrats:

Hillary Clinton: Sen. Hillary Clinton drew criticism Tuesday for a Martin Luther King Jr. Day speech in which she told a mostly black audience at a Harlem church that Republican leaders have run the House "like a plantation" and the Bush administration will go down as "one of the worst" in U.S. history.http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation/index.htmlAlso, speaking about Gandhi: "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis." http://weblog.theviewfromthecore.com/2004_01/ind_002924.html

John Edwards is probably the worst of all: "We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating " pretty soon we're not going to have a young African-American male population in America," he said. "They're all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58053

No direct quotes, but let's not forget...

Rudy Giuliani: Lowered crime in New York City by allowingpolice officers to oppress black and Latino New Yorkers with brute force: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/237371/rudy_giuliani_crime_and_racism.html

Mark is right (way up in the thread). Becky is right - and eloquently so. Hx is right. This was not just a matter of some employee of his having racist views. These words were written by someone who, if was not Dr Paul himself, it was someone who wanted everyone to think it was him. The words are not mildly racist or un-PC racist - they are vile, disgusting blatant racism. They are homophobic. The writer here who invoked MLK should be ashamed - MLK got some of the most vicious, scurrilous words thrown at him. Barbara Jordan - "a nice lady" he says. Not so in his newsletter. Every cliche and hate-filled stereotype one can think of - signed by Ron Paul, under Ron Paul's name, ending with "carol and I and our kids" ... if it was not him, as I said, it was someone who wanted it to look like it was him. He supported this for TWENTY years, folks. Wake up. Open your eyes. You desperately want to believe in this man, and he stands for so much that I believe in too -- but I cannot, I will not, we must not support someone who could allow this to go on. And if he "didn't know" ??? What kind of president would he be??? This is it. Thank you Becky for your courage, and Hx and Mark too, and anyone else I missed. To the rest of you: wake up. Don't be fooled.

Why I'm still supporting Ron Paul. Even if he has prejudices, Ron Paul is not a one-issue candidate and I'm not a one-issue voter. I am a firm stardent believer in the Constitution and the many other issues that he believes in. I'm Hispanic; I'm gay. I know the he's not a fan of gays but he cannot stop the beliefs of young Americans who come from a different generation - a generation of more acceptance. I don't have any beliefs that RP will win the nomination but I will vote for him anyway because my vote is my voice! Why do any of you think that Hillary has changed her tune yet again to pulling out the troops immediately instead of 3 years? Could it be because RP has raised 26 million dollars from grassroots supporters who demand it? If you give your vote (voice) to Hillary, you have taken the strength of your beliefs from Ron Paul and handed them to the devil herself. Okay, that's a stretch but you get the idea. Dave Sanchez

I have, in the past, been associated with individuals who have committed criminal acts, from drug dealing to cheating the government. They've gone to jail, they've snorted and smoked drugs. I have been associated with individuals who ran a prostitution ring and have done so many things that have been immoral.

I could not, can not, control them. I did not judge them, although I knew what they were doing was wrong. I would at times tell them to say, "stop dealing the drugs." Well, they ended up in jail.

These were friends of mine from 15-20 years ago. I NEVER did any of these things. I no longer have any associations with these people.

Even now I have friends who, every now and again, make racist remarks.

Anyone could say, perhaps I did drugs, dealt drugs and was involved with shady people, so I did shady things. The truth is I NEVER did any of those things that they did. I liked them for they treated me as a friend...what they did to themselves and others was NOT right. AND there is lots of other things that they did that I am sure I didn't know about.

AM I to be held responsible for what they did? am I to be accused of doing and believing and living my life the way they did 20 years ago?

I know I was never any of these things, even though I was surrounded by it.

If you don't like RP anymore, if his response (which is the 2nd time he is responding to it, it's ONLY "new" news to the rest of American except Texas) is not satisfying to you. Then you and all others need to step aside BECAUSE there a rEVOLution going on.

There is REAL CHANGE because of his message.

You don't hear him promoting ANY of the disgusting things in those newsletters.

Choose some other candidate if you like their message, if it speaks to you, if you believe what they say, if you truly think they will bring on change, if they stick to the issues, if they are intelligent, if they don't lie, pick one of them, switch parties if you have to, listen their message then pick one of them.

This film tells the true story of fraudulent Washington, D.C. journalist Stephen Glass (Christensen), who rose to meteoric heights as a young writer in his 20s, becoming a staff writer at "The New Republic" for three years (1995-1998), where 27 of his 41 published stories were either partially or completely made up. Looking for a short cut to fame, Glass concocted sources, quotes and even entire stories, but his deception did not go unnoticed forever, and eventually, his world came crumbling down... Written by Kaliya Warner

The worst part of this nonsense, is that this kid is a Yale '06 and I know many of his friends (I'm MIT '06, but I went to a Yale feeder so some of hisfriends are my friends as well). He's certainly getting off from the attention he's getting from his smear even though it's nothing new, but timed correctly.

This is really satisfied by the nice services in this blog that to really providing the wonderful info is visible in this blog. Thanks a lot for sharing the nice technology in this blog that to nice services in this blog.

Thanks for this piece. It seems that everybody from LGF to the HuffPo was all set for a witch-hunt, and now that Ron has repeatedly answered these charges, they still want someone to be the witch they can burn.

I don't care who wrote or edited those newsletters, because I'm satisfied that it wasn't my candidate.

Either "Anonymous" is being sarcastically anti-PC, or he's playing the PC game of denigrating all thoughts and sentiments not approved by the elite. I suspect he's joking. Note the qualifying phrase "according to the current dogma" and the laughably ridiculous charge of "aboriginal American" racism. Then again, some people are ignorant enough to think Hispanics are aboriginal in the Western Hemisphere cheap mlb jerseys

what brown people call "stewart rhodes" is coconut, brown outside, white inside. we call ron paul a racist because of this quote "600,000 Americans died in the senseless Civil War. No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic.” slavery is an original tenet of the republic? both my grandfathers were american indian.

Tadalafil (Cialis) is used to treat erectile dysfunction (ED, impotence; inability to get or keep an erection), and the symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH; an enlarged prostate) which include difficulty urinating (hesitation, dribbling, weak stream, and incomplete bladder emptying), painful urination, and urinary frequency and urgency in adult men.

Disulfiram(antabuse) is used to treat chronic alcoholism. It causes unpleasant effects when even small amounts of alcohol are consumed. These effects include flushing of the face, headache, nausea, vomiting, chest pain, weakness, blurred vision, mental confusion, sweating, choking, breathing difficulty, and anxiety.